news from Russo-Ukraine Front

[Aida1]

Hi Cult Icon

Depends on what one means by cost. Cost is not always in casualties. Attacks can be much less costly to the attacker than the defender if the quality of the operation is very good, and the troops/equipment/ammunition/unit are very good.

All of that is true and by cost I mean all of the above. However it does not contradict the statement that attack is as always as makes no difference costlier than defence. No one is saying that the defending side will always sustain lower casualties etc. That would be an obvious nonsense as history proves time and time again. What it does mean, however, is that if Force A comes into contact with enemy Force B, if it chooses to defend it will sustain less cost than if it chooses to attack. Put another way, defence is stronger than attack.

So why do military forces ever attack? On a strategic level it is because you cannot win a conflict by defending. On a tactical level it is because you expect a big payoff - which might be gaining essential terrain, degrading the enemy's ability to fight by attrition or causing the enemy greater casualties either simply by forcing him to retreat or by forcing him into the posiiton where he has to attack you.

The statement has many exceptions so it is a very relative one.

[peeved]

1 All countries have a civilisation , thus all countries are civilised

You really should try to familiarise yourself with dictionary meanings and definitions instead of pulling them out of your hat.

2 There were no reprisals in Belgium :reprisals are answers on attacks by civilians, but there were no franc-tireurs in Belgium in 1914

Once again you present pretence as proof. An honest writer might refer to e.g. https://www.geschichte.uni-wuerzburg.de ... oeres_.pdf

3 What is usual ?

From Oxford Languages in this case "habitually or typically occurring or done; customary."

4 Racism has nothing to do with races which do not exist

So in your mind it is all right to refer to anything you like as racism instead of "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
OTOH you equal ethnicity with race:

There is no such thing as ethnicity, ethnicity is only a politically correct word for race .

and thus claim that neither ethnicity nor race exist.

Then you claim that

some one who says that an ethnic group is the same as a race ,can not be taken seriously .

and since ethnicity equals an ethnic group you admit that you cannot be taken seriously.

5 Give proofs that the Russians want to nazificate Ukraine and give a definition of what is nazification

Since Vlad Putrid declared his aims in Ukraine to be denazification and demilitarisation and the Gremlin cuckoo always lies his true intentions are nazification and militarisation of Ukraine.
"Nazification - social process of adopting (or being forced to adopt) Nazism."
In this case the Sodomite Union has similar ambitions to its "soviet" predecessor, the Red Nazis; Spreading the evil Ruffian nationalism and socialising other nationalities land and other resources for Orc use and trying to destroy their victims' national identity.

6 Just war ?? A just war is the war of the winner, an unjust war the war of the loser .

How immoral...Your own definition?

Finland started a war against the USSR in June 1941

Actually SU committed the first acts of aggression according to The Convention for the Definition of Aggression.

Markus

[Tom Peters]

Ww2 started 83 years ago : it is the past .The strategies, tactics and weapons from ww2 are also the past .Since 1945 the world has known dozens of wars,, but only 10 modern versions of WW2 . Most wars were and are guerilla wars who demand other weapons and an other thinking than WW 2 . The epoch of the conventional wars,children of WW2 , is over .US army is still studying the battles of WW2 ,who will not come back . And we have seen the results in Afghanistan and Vietnam of their convulsively holding to the past .Not only the US but all western countries refuse to accept the truth,because they live in a world were military can not kill civilians . While in the rest of the world,this is not so .The only way to defeat partisans, terrorists is to use more violence than they against the population .The Russians are terrorizing the population of the occupied parts of Ukraine ,because they know that this is
the only way to prevent a partisan uprising .
We live and fight in an other world .
I have countered the arguments from WW2 with examples of WW2 .

Ljadw seems dangerously close to admitting that RU atrocities are ok. Bucha, anyone ? mass graves in Izyum ?

Mad Dog

Where did I admit that they were OK ?

Your words:

"And we have seen the results in Afghanistan and Vietnam of their convulsively holding to the past .Not only the US but all western countries refuse to accept the truth,because they live in a world were military can not kill civilians . While in the rest of the world,this is not so .The only way to defeat partisans, terrorists is to use more violence than they against the population .The Russians are terrorizing the population of the occupied parts of Ukraine ,because they know that this is the only way to prevent a partisan uprising ."

Mad Dog

[Tom Peters]

Modern body armor ? The Iraqi, Iranian, African .. soldiers have no modern body armor . As usual you ignores that most of the fighting is done by non Americans .

You just keep proving that you dont actually read my posts before you respond.

I never claimed in nay sense that various third world armies extensively used body armor. I claimed that the prevalent use of such armor tends to increase the W:K ratio. QJM.

And, about western media : you wisely avoid to answer my quote of Colby ( former CIA chief ) who said in 1981:''The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media . ''

Why would I answer a quote other than a question ? Why would I care about Colby's CIA statement form 1981, when it is demonstrably false ?

You dont like UKR in this conflict, go to Moon of Alabama. Is this a CIA front ? There you can find quote the Q-tard conspiracy crowd. You might like it.

Mad Dog

[Tom Peters]

US army manual is about wars where the US fought, and these wars are only a minority and can not be used as a proof : most of WW2 fighting was done in the east,between the Soviets and Germany and the US army manual has no data about the war in the east .

Sigh. So much pointless assumption your part. The models used by the army or QJM are based off of combat data from all available sources and battles, not just those fought by the US.

If you had bothered to look into this you would of known this. You didnt exert even the minimal degree of curiosity. Instead you made another stupid assertion not based in reality.

Why do you keep embarrassing yourself ?

Mad Dog

Available sources ? Do you say that the Soviet sources were available to Americans ? Or the Japanese sources .the Iranian, Iraqi sources......?

Want to Add Israeli, Egyptian, etc ? Yes, sources outside the US were used in this model.

Mad Dog

[peeved]

And, about western media : you wisely avoid to answer my quote of Colby ( former CIA chief ) who said in 1981:''The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media . ''

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunk ... media.158/

Markus

[Tom Peters]

[41 Tanks, Armored Vehicles And Self-Propelled Howitzers On Just 1 Railways Military Echelon]

That's nice. I wonder how well trained the crews are? Shiny hardware is no use without well trained and motivated operators. So far Russia seems to have a shortage of these.

And 3rd world Ukraine doesn't?

The Russians have an extreme shortage of infantry to support their armor. Little evidence that there is something wrong with their crews.

Other than the crews running off, abandoning their equipment.

Mad Dog

[Tom Peters]

Ehhh, guys... minor battlefield victories do not and can not overshadow the large strategic picture. This is most likely going to be a stalemate, a long and bloody affair with no end to see. Russia can deploy wave after wave of military personnel in an attempt to take more and more territories from Ukraine.

Quite possibly. This could drag out and affect the entire world economy. I do suspect, based on various pieces of data, that RU cannot keep this up indefinitely due to economic shrinkage.

Mad Dog

[Tom Peters]

It is evident that throughout this war, the Russians are giving away captured Ukrainian T-64s to the Separatists.

Here are some being loaded onto an aircraft:

Why in Gods name, would you fly a T-64 to somewhere relatively close...as opposed to railing it ? What, the DPR and LPR object to getting shitty T-62 ?

Mad Dog

[gebhk]

The statement has many exceptions so it is a very relative one.

Relative to what?

As for the exceptions - I'll warrant that they pretty much are related to defending unfavourable terrain. In other words, a situation where it is cheaper to fight your way out than to stay where you are - for example if you are defending a fever-ridden swamp, fighting your way out of it before all your men die of disease may be the cheaper option. Other examples?

[Tom Peters]

Ehhh, guys... minor battlefield victories do not and can not overshadow the large strategic picture. This is most likely going to be a stalemate, a long and bloody affair with no end to see. Russia can deploy wave after wave of military personnel in an attempt to take more and more territories from Ukraine.

I want to read a quality and professional Russian analysis on what is actually going on with Russian military politics, not the endless dumb, made-up propaganda nonsense rotating throughout our media.

It looks to me that the Russian leadership is slowly negotiating the slow as molasses war escalation machine, like in the 2nd Chechen war. Military common sense would require partial mobilization months before Feb 24th, not half a year later.

Where are you going to find an honest RU opinion given the political situation in RU ? Cant call the war a "war" , and get to open, you fall out of a hospital window....

Mad Dog

[Peter89]

Ehhh, guys... minor battlefield victories do not and can not overshadow the large strategic picture. This is most likely going to be a stalemate, a long and bloody affair with no end to see. Russia can deploy wave after wave of military personnel in an attempt to take more and more territories from Ukraine.

Quite possibly. This could drag out and affect the entire world economy. I do suspect, based on various pieces of data, that RU cannot keep this up indefinitely due to economic shrinkage.

Mad Dog

Russia's economic shrinkage is foreseen to be 2.9% by the Russian Central Bank, and about 6% by the World Bank. This is not nearly enough to affect Russia's warmaking capability.

[ljadw]

And, about western media : you wisely avoid to answer my quote of Colby ( former CIA chief ) who said in 1981:''The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media . ''

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunk ... media.158/

Markus

What said Metabunk ?
That ,following the CIA, they stopped to use journalists as spies in 1973 .
Before 1973 the CIA lied that they used journalists . After1973 they said that they stopped this , but there is no proof that they did not lie after 1973 . Thus,why should we believe the CIA ?
Kim Philby worked for MI6 and the Cheka,when he was a journalist .
In 1991 Richard Norton-Taylor said in the Guardian that 90 British journalists worked for the CIA .
The CIA would be very stupid not to use the media ,as the media are very glad to work for the CIA/MI5, FSB, of course not for free .
The claim that the media are free and independent is an old illusion : MI6 used in 1939 a journalist to attack Chamberlain's appeasement policy .MI5 tried in 1955 also to sabotage Eden's appeasement policy .

[Tom Peters]

Hi Cult Icon

Depends on what one means by cost. Cost is not always in casualties. Attacks can be much less costly to the attacker than the defender if the quality of the operation is very good, and the troops/equipment/ammunition/unit are very good.

All of that is true and by cost I mean all of the above. However it does not contradict the statement that attack is as always as makes no difference costlier than defence. No one is saying that the defending side will always sustain lower casualties etc. That would be an obvious nonsense as history proves time and time again. What it does mean, however, is that if Force A comes into contact with enemy Force B, if it chooses to defend it will sustain less cost than if it chooses to attack. Put another way, defence is stronger than attack.

So why do military forces ever attack? On a strategic level it is because you cannot win a conflict by defending. On a tactical level it is because you expect a big payoff - which might be gaining essential terrain, degrading the enemy's ability to fight by attrition or causing the enemy greater casualties either simply by forcing him to retreat or by forcing him into the posiiton where he has to attack you.

Jus to clarify, the original discussion is in regards to manpower casualties.

Mad Dog

[Aida1]

The statement has many exceptions so it is a very relative one.

Relative to what?

As for the exceptions - I'll warrant that they pretty much are related to defending unfavourable terrain. In other words, a situation where it is cheaper to fight your way out than to stay where you are - for example if you are defending a fever-ridden swamp, fighting your way out of it before all your men die of disease may be the cheaper option. Other examples?

If the defender is demoralised or seriously outgunned are other examples. Also when he can be maneuvered out of a defensive position is another one. Defenders will sometimes lose heaviest when routed. Not difficult to find battles in military history where the attacker had lower losses.